Labour10/11/2026

Labor Court Recognizes Appearance at Employment Service Despite Missing Biometric Record

The Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court accepted the appeal of a job seeker who was not paid unemployment benefits for one month because there was no electronic record of her appearance. The court ruled that the totality of the circumstantial evidence was sufficient and accepted the possibility that the biometric device had malfunctioned.

Key facts

•Court: Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court
•Judge: Tomer Silora
•Disputed appearance date: December 8, 2024
•Office: Employment Service in Petah Tikva
•The case number was not stated in the source
•No legal costs were awarded

The Dispute Over the Record

The job seeker claimed that on December 8, 2024, she arrived with her son at the Employment Service office in Petah Tikva. The biometric device directed her to station No. 12, after which an employee told her that everything was in order and that she could leave. About a month later, it emerged that her appearance had not been recorded, and she was therefore not paid unemployment benefits for the month in question.

Why the Service Rejected Her Claim

The Employment Service found no biometric record and argued that an internal examination had revealed no malfunction in the device. The Service’s appeals committee also rejected the woman’s claims: a parking receipt and a purchase made near the office proved that she had been in the vicinity, but did not prove the appearance itself. She did not retain the paper slip issued by the device, which the job seeker said had directed her to station No. 12.

What Evidence the Court Accepted

Before the court, the woman—represented by attorney Yinon Tamari of the Ministry of Justice’s Legal Aid Department—submitted records showing payment of parking fees through the Pango app, a receipt from the Amit café and bakery located opposite the office, the notation “Employment Service” in her personal diary, and confirmation of her son’s absence from school. She also emphasized that she had tried unsuccessfully to obtain the building’s security-camera footage. Judge Tomer Silora ruled that her account was consistent and made in good faith, and that the evidence submitted was sufficient on the balance of probabilities.

The Decision and Next Steps

The court defined the case as an exceptional instance justifying intervention in the appeals committee’s conclusions and accepted the appeal. The judge noted that malfunctions may occur from time to time in the biometric registration system and ruled that it was unreasonable to believe that the woman had made a special trip to the city center with her minor son but had failed to fulfill her reporting obligation. No legal costs were awarded because the applicant was represented by state legal aid; the Employment Service announced that it intends to appeal the judgment.

What this means for you

The absence of a biometric record does not, by itself, always preclude proving an appearance at the Employment Service. A court may examine a collection of circumstantial evidence—parking and purchase receipts, diary entries, documents concerning an accompanying child, and attempts to obtain video footage. However, the Employment Service intends to appeal, so the final outcome of the dispute may change.

Find a lawyer for this topic

Case analysis based on court rulings